This topic has a twofold purpose: to serve to enlighten myself through discussion with people more learned than myself, and, the purpose that every topic has, to serve to enlighten the participants of the discussion generally. I mention the first purpose because this really is a topic I expect almost everybody here to have greater knowledge than myself of.
Here's the question that I pose for discussion: the Pope Issue, - whether or not Pope Francis and his most recent predecessors can truly be called Popes and not apostates outside of the Catholic Church - why does it matter so much? Why is there so much division between traditionalists on this point? If all traditionalists are in agreement that the recent Popes have effectively been doing the work of Satan by spreading heresies, impieties, and abominable counterfeit sacraments, then why does it matter so much whether the Pope is a formal heretic or merely one of the most wicked material heretics to ever have befallen mankind? Surely that is a finicky question for a master theologian to trouble himself with after the Church has been restored to its full glory. It's an academic question whether or not the Pope is a formal heretic or just a material heretic so harmful as to offend the piety of an Arius or a Martin Luther. Either way, the responsibilities of Catholics, the ones that have the Faith and rightfully can be called Catholics, are the same: they are to provide (if priest) or seek (if layman) the true Blessed Sacraments that the heretical Popes and their Bishops do not provide, and to provide (if priest) or seek (if layman) sermons on the Catholic Faith, which the heretic Popes and their Bishops do not provide, and, especially, sermons on how a Catholic is to equip him or herself with the armour of Faith in these most perilous of times when it is most sorely needed.
Why do some traditionalist, i.e. catholic, priests bind the laity by saying that they MUST believe that Francis is Pope, while other priests bind the laity by saying that they MUST NOT believe that Francis is Pope? Why do some insist on saying "una cuм Francis" (or however it is rendered in Latin), while some insist on omitting the "una cuм" altogether? Why can't we have the best of both worlds? Why can't we say that it does not matter what your personal opinion is on the validity of Francis's claim to the papacy because it is not your prerogative to discern the answer to such a complicated matter of theology, it is is only your duty to refuse to obey and follow the example of Francis and his predecessors when they display manifest heresy; and why can't we say in Holy Mass "una cuм Papa" (however it would be rendered in Latin), i.e. in communion with the Pope (whomever that may be, whether it is Francis or not)?
If we are all agreed that Rome has become the habitation of devils, then we should not be squabbling over a legal matter like whether or not the archdemon over there retains his office. Faith is more important than Law, and Rome has lost the Faith, so who cares if they are still following all of the proper legal procedures? Either way, there should be no discord between us as we all should be in chorus singing, "Rome the great has fallen, has fallen." Our resources are so few and so precious, it's downright sinful for us to be squandering them on petty disputes with each other. How rare are traditionalist Catholics of any kind? How infinitely precious is each one of those people that seeks the true, catholic Faith? And yet brother will go to war against brother with more tenacity and spite than against their joint enemy that is equally the ruin of each.